James Bottomley posted an article to the lkml titled, "The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3" authored by ten of the most active Linux kernel developers. The paper begins by examining the GPLv2's role in the success of the Linux kernel, then goes on to point out some potential flaws in the upcoming GPLv3. Specific issues are raised with the DRM clauses in the license, "while we find the use of DRM by media companies in their attempts to reach into user owned devices to control content deeply disturbing, our belief in the essential freedoms of section 3 forbids us from ever accepting any licence which contains end use restrictions", the additional restrictions clause, "the additional restrictions section in the current draft makes GPLv3 a pick and choose soup of possible restrictions which is going to be a nightmare for our distributions to sort out legally and get right", and the patents provisions, "as drafted, this currently looks like it would potentially jeopardise the entire patent portfolio of a company simply by the act of placing a GPLv3 licensed programme on their website." The document concludes, "the three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence proposal. However, we also note that the current draft with each of the unacceptable provisions stripped out completely represents at best marginal value over the tested and proven GPLv2."

The resulting discussion included a number of clarifications from Linux creator Linus Torvalds. When it was suggested that he should have specifically retained the right to modify the licensing of the entire kernel he pointed out that things work better as they are with nobody firmly in charge, "remember: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Asking for things that are perfect 'in theory' usually just results in things that are horrible 'in practice'. So not having anybody in charge could _in_theory_ cause problems. But _in_practice_ it's a hell of a lot better than somebody that people need to worry about." He also stressed that the Linux kernel is not a Free Software Foundation project, "I personally have always been very clear about this: Linux is 'Open Source'. It was never a FSF project, and it was always about giving source code back and keeping it open, not about anything else." He further clarified, "the whole 'Open Source' renaming was done largely _exactly_ because people wanted to distance themselves from the FSF. The fact that the FSF and it's followers refused to accept the name 'Open Source', and continued to call Linux 'Free Software' is not _our_ fault."

From: James Bottomley [email blocked]
To: linux-kernel [email blocked]
Subject: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:15:50 -0500

Although this white paper was discussed amongst the full group of kernel
developers who participated in the informal poll, as you can expect from
Linux Kernel Developers, there was a wide crossection of opinion.  This
document is really only for discussion, and represents only the views of
the people listed as authors (not the full voting pool).

James

----------

The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3


James E.J. Bottomley             Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Thomas Gleixner            Christoph Hellwig           Dave Jones
Greg Kroah-Hartman              Tony Luck           Andrew Morton
Trond Myklebust             David Woodhouse

                               15 September 2006
                                     Abstract

           This document is a position statement on the GNU General Public
       License version 3 (in its current Draft 2 form) and its surrounding
       process issued by some of the Maintainers of the Linux Kernel
       speaking purely in their role as kernel maintainers. In no regard
       should any opinion expressed herein be construed to represent the
       views of any entities employing or being associated with any of the
       authors.

1 Linux and GPLv2

Over the past decade, the Linux Operating System has shown itself to be far
and away the most successful Open Source operating system in history.
However, it certainly wasn't the first such open source operating system
and neither is it currently the only such operating system. We believe that
the pre-eminent success of Linux owes a great part to the dynamism and
diversity of its community of contributors, and that one of the catalysts
for creating and maintaining this community is the development contract as
expressed by GPLv2.

    Since GPLv2 has served us so well for so long, and since it is the
foundation of our developer contract which has helped propel Linux to the
successes it enjoys today, we are extremely reluctant to contemplate
tampering with that licence except as bug fixes to correct exposed problems
or updates counter imminent dangers. So far, in the whole history of GPLv2,
including notable successes both injunctively and at trial, we have not
found any bugs significant enough to warrant such corrections.


2 Linux, the Kernel and the Open Source Universe

Linux Distributions, as the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has often
observed, don't only contain the kernel; they are composed of a
distribution of disparate open source components of which the kernel is
only a part (albeit a significant and indispensable part) which
collectively make up a useful and usable system. Thus, Linux as installed
by the end user, is critically dependent on entities, known as
distributions, who collect all of the necessary components together and
deliver them in a tested, stable form. The vast proliferation of Open
Source Licences complicates the job of these distributions and forces them
to spend time checking and assessing the ramifications of combining
software packages distributed under different (and often mutually
incompatible) licences--indeed, sometimes licensing consideration will be
sufficient to exclude a potential package from a distribution altogether.

    In deference to the critical role of distributions, we regard reducing
the Open Source licensing profusion as a primary objective. GPLv2 has
played an important role in moving towards this objective by becoming the
dominant Licence in the space today, making it possible to put together a
Linux Distribution from entirely GPLv2 components and thus simplify the
life of a distributor. Therefore, we believe that any update to GPLv2 must
be so compelling as to cause all projects currently licensed under it to
switch as expediently as possible and thus not fragment the currently
unified GPLv2 licensed ecosystem.


3 Linux and Freedom

Another of the planks of Linux's success rests squarely on the breadth and
diversity of its community of contributors and users, without whom we
wouldn't have the steady stream of innovation which drives our movement
forward. However, an essential element of this is the fact that individuals
with disparate (and sometimes even competing) objectives can still march
together a considerable distance to their mutual benefit. This synergy of
effort, while not compromising dissimilar aims, is one of the reasons Linux
manages to harness the efforts of not only motivated developers but also
corporate and commercial interests. This in turn is brought about by a
peculiar freedom enshrined in the developer contract as represented by
GPLv2, namely the freedom from binding the end use of the project. Without
this freedom, it would be much more difficult to satisfy the objectives of
the contributors, since those objectives often have expression in terms of
the end use to which they wish to put the particular project. Therefore, in
order to maintain the essential development synergy and consequent
innovation stream it provides to Linux, we could not countenance any change
to the GPL which would jeopardise this fundamental freedom.


4 Pivotal Role of the Free Software Foundation

We have acknowledged before, projects controlled by the FSF (especially
gcc, binutils and glibc) are essential components of every shipping Linux
distribution. However, we also take note of the fact that the FSF operates
very differently from Linux in that it requires assignment of copyright
from each and every one of the thousands of contributors to its code
base. These contributions have been given to the FSF not as a tribute to do
with as it will but under a solemn trust, as stated in article 9 of GPLv2,
only to licence the code under versions of the GPL that "... will be
similar in spirit to the present version". We, like all the individual
contributors to GNU projects, have taken that trust at face value and
accorded the FSF a special role in the Open Source Universe because of
it. It goes without saying that any updates to GPLv2 must be completely in
accord with the execution of that trust.


5 GPLv3 and the Process to Date

The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails
the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial
and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve.

    However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the
current FSF draft:

5.1     DRM Clauses

Also referred to as the "Tivoisation" clauses.

    While we find the use of DRM by media companies in their attempts to
reach into user owned devices to control content deeply disturbing, our
belief in the essential freedoms of section 3 forbids us from ever
accepting any licence which contains end use restrictions. The existence of
DRM abuse is no excuse for curtailing freedoms.

    Further, the FSF's attempts at drafting and re-drafting these
provisions have shown them to be a nasty minefield which keeps ensnaring
innocent and beneficial uses of encryption and DRM technologies so, on such
demonstrated pragmatic ground, these clauses are likewise dangerous and
difficult to get right and should have no place in a well drafted update to
GPLv2.

    Finally, we recognise that defining what constitutes DRM abuse is
essentially political in nature and as such, while we may argue forcefully
for our political opinions, we may not suborn or coerce others to go along
with them. Therefore, attempting to write these type of restrictions into
GPLv3 and then relicense all FSF code under it is tantamount to co-opting
the work of all prior contributions into the service of the FSF's political
ends, and thus represents a fundamental violation of the trust outlined in
section 4.

5.2     Additional Restrictions Clause

As we stated in section 2 one of the serious issues in Open Source is too
many licences. The additional restrictions section in the current draft
makes GPLv3 a pick and choose soup of possible restrictions which is going
to be a nightmare for our distributions to sort out legally and get
right. Thus, it represents a significant and unacceptable retrograde step
over GPLv2 and its no additional restrictions clause.

     Further, the additional restrictions create the possibility of
fragmentation of the licensing universes among particular chosen
restrictions, which then become difficult to combine and distribute
(because of the need for keeping track of the separate restrictions). Thus,
we think this potential for fragmentation will completely eliminate the
needed compulsion to move quickly to a new licence as outlined in section 2

5.3     Patents Provisions

As drafted, this currently looks like it would potentially jeopardise the
entire patent portfolio of a company simply by the act of placing a GPLv3
licensed programme on their website. Since the Linux software ecosystem
relies on these type of contributions from companies who have lawyers who
will take the broadest possible interpretation when assessing liability, we
find this clause unacceptable because of the chilling effect it will have
on the necessary corporate input to our innovation stream.

     Further, some companies who also act as current distributors of Linux
have significant patent portfolios; thus this clause represents another
barrier to their distributing Linux and as such is unacceptable under
section 2 because of the critical reliance our ecosystem has on these
distributions.


6 Conclusions

The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and
collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence
proposal. However, we also note that the current draft with each of the
unacceptable provisions stripped out completely represents at best marginal
value over the tested and proven GPLv2. Therefore, as far as we are
concerned (and insofar as we control subsystems of the kernel) we cannot
foresee any drafts of GPLv3 coming out of the current drafting process that
would prove acceptable to us as a licence to move the current Linux Kernel
to.

    Further, since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to
GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we
foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open
Source Universe upon which we rely. This Balkanisation, which will be
manifested by distributions being forced to fork various packages in order
to get consistent licences, has the potential to inflict massive collateral
damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardise the very utility and
survival of Open Source. Since we can see nothing of sufficient value in
the current drafts of the GPLv3 to justify this terrible cost, we can only
assume the FSF is unaware of the current potential for disaster of the
course on which is has embarked. Therefore, we implore the FSF to
re-examine the consequences of its actions and to abandon the current GPLv3
process before it becomes too late.



From: Adrian Bunk [email blocked]
Subject: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 19:49:53 +0200

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:15:50AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:

> Although this white paper was discussed amongst the full group of kernel
> developers who participated in the informal poll, as you can expect from
> Linux Kernel Developers, there was a wide crossection of opinion.  This
> document is really only for discussion, and represents only the views of
> the people listed as authors (not the full voting pool).
> 
> James
> 
> ----------
> 
> The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3
> 
> 
> James E.J. Bottomley             Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> Thomas Gleixner            Christoph Hellwig           Dave Jones
> Greg Kroah-Hartman              Tony Luck           Andrew Morton
> Trond Myklebust             David Woodhouse
>...
> 6 Conclusions
> 
>... Therefore, as far as we are
> concerned (and insofar as we control subsystems of the kernel) we cannot
> foresee any drafts of GPLv3 coming out of the current drafting process that
> would prove acceptable to us as a licence to move the current Linux Kernel
> to.
>...


Some people might wonder why kernel developers have any business
discussing the GPLv3 in their positions as kernel developers and why 
10 core kernel developers put their names on a document containing this
statement.


Isn't all this complete nonsense considering that the COPYING file in 
the kernel contains the following?

<--  snip  -->

 Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
 is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
 v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

<--  snip  -->


Considering that the number of people that contributed to the Linux 
kernel during the last 15 years might be in the range 5.000-20.000, so 
asking all contributors to agree with a licence change from GPLv2 to 
GPLv3 (or any other license) and handling all the cases where 
contributors do not answer, are not reachable or disagree, and doing 
this in a way not creating legal issues in any jurisdiction is not a 
realistic option.


So aren't all discussions about "acceptable to us as a licence to move 
the current Linux Kernel to" silly since this is anyway not an option?


In the internal discussions there was one point that changes this 
pictures, and I would consider it highly immoral to keep it secret since 
it affects every single contributor to Linux.


Thinking about probably changing the license of the kernel makes sense 
if you believe the following "nuclear option" is a real option:

     1. It is a legally tenable and arguable position that the Linux
        kernel is a work of joint authorship whose legal citus is that
        of the USA.
     2. On this basis, a single co-author can cause the kernel to be
        relicensed.
     3. To be legally sound, such a co-author would have to be either a
        current major subsystem maintainer or a demonstrated contributor
        of a significant proportion of code of the kernel.


cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed



From: Greg KH [email blocked]
Subject: Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:00:37 -0700

On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:49:53PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Isn't all this complete nonsense considering that the COPYING file in 
> the kernel contains the following?
> 
> <--  snip  -->

In a way, it is, but no one else is standing up in the free software
community becides Linus stating that they think the GPLv3 is bad.  So we
wanted to make our statement also known.

> In the internal discussions there was one point that changes this 
> pictures, and I would consider it highly immoral to keep it secret since 
> it affects every single contributor to Linux.
> 
> Thinking about probably changing the license of the kernel makes sense 
> if you believe the following "nuclear option" is a real option:
> 
>      1. It is a legally tenable and arguable position that the Linux
>         kernel is a work of joint authorship whose legal citus is that
>         of the USA.
>      2. On this basis, a single co-author can cause the kernel to be
>         relicensed.
>      3. To be legally sound, such a co-author would have to be either a
>         current major subsystem maintainer or a demonstrated contributor
>         of a significant proportion of code of the kernel.

Note that almost no lawyer that I have spoken to about this believes
this is an option.  However, one lawyer I have talked to does believe
this, luckily, that lawyer does not have a client who is a co-author in
the current Linux kernel :)

Anyway, this is arguing a legal point on lkml that even the lawyers
don't all agree apon.  I don't think it will get very far here either.

And don't let it detract from the main issue here, the GPLv3 as drafted
has some major issues that a number of us publicly object to, and feel
it will cause great harm if it becomes ratified as drafted.

thanks,

greg k-h



From: David Schwartz [email blocked]
Subject: RE: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:04:45 -0700


> Isn't all this complete nonsense considering that the COPYING file in
> the kernel contains the following?
>
> <--  snip  -->
>
>  Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
>  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
>  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
>
> <--  snip  -->

First of all, I want to congratulate the Linux kernel developers on getting
it right. I never would have imagined a near-consensus could have emerged on
an even stronger position than my own.

Second, I should point out again that it is unfortunate that Linus did not
retain for himself the exclusive right to modify the Linux kernel license.
If some real problem ever does emerge in the GPLv2 as applies to Linux, it
will be extremely difficult to resolve.

This is probably going to be controversial, but Linus should seriously
consider adding a clause that those who contribute to the kernel from now on
consent to allow him to modify the license on their current contributions
and all past contributions, amending the Linux kernel license as
appropriate. This would at least begin to reduce this problem over the next
few years, leaving fewer and fewer people with claim to less and less code
who would have legal standing to object.

I agree there is no pressing need now and the Linus is unlikely to want to
or need to change the Linux kernel license any time soon, but there could be
an issue of some kind in the next few years, and it would be nice to start
on a solution.

DS



From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: RE: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:25:19 -0700 (PDT)



On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> This is probably going to be controversial, but Linus should seriously
> consider adding a clause that those who contribute to the kernel from now on
> consent to allow him to modify the license on their current contributions
> and all past contributions, amending the Linux kernel license as
> appropriate. This would at least begin to reduce this problem over the next
> few years, leaving fewer and fewer people with claim to less and less code
> who would have legal standing to object.

It's the last thing I'd ever want to do, for all the same reasons the 
kernel doesn't have the "or later versions" language wrt licenses.

I don't actually want people to need to trust anybody - and that 
very much includes me - implicitly.

I think people can generally trust me, but they can trust me exactly 
because they know they don't _have_ to.

The reason the poll and the whitepaper got started was that I've obviously 
not been all that happy with the GPLv3, and while I was pretty sure I was 
not alone in that opinion, I also realize that _everybody_ thinks that 
they are right, and that they are supported by all other right-thinking 
people. That's just how people work. We all think we're better than 
average.

So while I personally thought it was pretty clear that the GPLv2 was the 
better license for the kernel, I didn't want to just depend on my own 
personal opinion, but I wanted to feel that I had actually made my best to 
ask people.

Now, I could have done it all directly on the Linux-kernel mailing list, 
but let's face it, that would just have caused a long discussion and we'd 
not have really been any better off anyway. So instead, I did

	git log | grep -i signed-off-by: |
		cut -d: -f2- | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | less -S

which anybody else can do on their copy of their git repository, and I 
just picked the first screenful of people (and Alan. And later we added 
three more people after somebody pointed out that some top people use 
multiple email addresses so my initial filtering hadn't counted for them 
properly).

[ I also double-checked by just checking the same numbers for authorship.
  I'll very openly admit to thinking that the maintainership that goes 
  with forwarding other peoples patches to me counts as almost as 
  important as the authorship itself, which is why I started out with the 
  signed-off-by count, but I also wanted to verify that the list of people 
  makes sense either way. It did. ]

In other words, maybe some people thought that the 29 names were somehow 
"selected" to get that particular answer.  Nope. The only selection was 
just an arbitrary cut-off-point (and the fact that I think two people 
didn't actually vote).

It wasn't meant to be really "definitive" - the poll was literally meant 
to get _some_ kind of view into how the top developers feel. I think the 
end result ended up being more definitive (just thanks to the very clear 
voting pattern) than we migth have expected.

So, to anybody not on the list - don't feel bad. This was about getting a 
good _feeling_ for how the top kernel maintainers - judging purely by an 
admittedly fairly arbitrary, but also very neutral, measure - felt about 
the license.

If the result had turned out very differently, I would probably have had 
to seriously re-think my stance on the license. I don't guarantee that I 
always change my mind, but I _can_ guarantee that if most of the people I 
trust tell me I'm a dick-head, I'll at least give it a passing thought.

[ Chorus: "You're a dick-head, Linus" ]

Anyway, nobody got voted off the island. This was a poll, to get a view 
into what people thought. Take it as such, and I think people will happily
discuss issues.

Different people had different issues with the GPLv3, so the separate 
white-paper that was written was done by a different group, and is meant 
for a different reason - it talks about some of the issues those 
particular people wanted to point out. 

My personal opinion is that a lot of the public discussion has been driven 
by people who are motivated by the politics of the discussion. So you have 
a lot of very vocal GPLv3 supporters. But I think that the people who 
actually end up doing a lot of the development are usually not as vocal, 
and haev actually not been heard very much at all.

In some sense, the poll is a way for the people who actually do a lot of 
the work to show that the FSF doesn't speak for necessarily even a very 
big portion of actual developers.

				Linus

From: "David Schwartz" [email blocked]
Subject: RE: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:11:52 -0700


> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, David Schwartz wrote:

> > This is probably going to be controversial, but Linus should seriously
> > consider adding a clause that those who contribute to the
> > kernel from now on
> > consent to allow him to modify the license on their current
> > contributions
> > and all past contributions, amending the Linux kernel license as
> > appropriate. This would at least begin to reduce this problem
> > over the next
> > few years, leaving fewer and fewer people with claim to less
> > and less code
> > who would have legal standing to object.

> It's the last thing I'd ever want to do, for all the same reasons the
> kernel doesn't have the "or later versions" language wrt licenses.

> I don't actually want people to need to trust anybody - and that
> very much includes me - implicitly.

> I think people can generally trust me, but they can trust me exactly
> because they know they don't _have_ to.

Yeah, I see your point. However, what happens if three years from now, there
is some reason that the Linux kernel license really does need to be changed
to fix a serious problem? We're basically just screwed.

While it is true that people don't have to trust you now. They do have to
trust/hope that there won't come a future time when some license problem or
change in law significantly impairs their ability to use Linux.

I can think of procedural safeguards against the "Linus sells out" or "Linus
goes insane" potential problems, but I don't have a perfect solution. I'm
not even sure I have a good one, other than hoping there never is such a
problem and/or that there's some good way to deal with one should one arise.

Suppose hypothetically GPLv3 had been really, really good and there was a
general consensus that it would provide siginficant benefits if it could be
applied to Linux. It might be nice to be able to apply it.

DS



From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: RE: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:36:05 -0700 (PDT)



On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
> I can think of procedural safeguards against the "Linus sells out" or "Linus
> goes insane" potential problems, but I don't have a perfect solution.

I don't think one exists.

The thing is, there's an entirely non-legal reason to never do something 
like that, namely just the psychology of the thing. 

Licenses are important for legal reasons (because problems can arise), but 
I would say that licenses are even *more* important as to how developers 
see them.

And I know that I'm personally very much turned off by any license that 
grants any particular party any special powers. It doesn't matter _how_ 
much I respect or trust the party in question, I wouldn't want to use that 
license.

So any license wording that said that I have any special powers would, I'm 
sure, alienate a large portion of the people who matter - the developers.

So the thing is, we're _much_ better off with nobody that firmly "in 
charge", over the alternative. Everybody feels safer. Nobody needs to 
worry about me or anybody else suddenly going crazy. 

Remember: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Asking for things that are 
perfect "in theory" usually just results in things that are horrible "in 
practice".

So not having anybody in charge could _in_theory_ cause problems. But 
_in_practice_ it's a hell of a lot better than somebody that people need 
to worry about.

				Linus


From: James Bottomley [email blocked]
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:08:17 -0500

On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:59 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> James, I'm most definitely NOT a kernel developer, just a lurker who 
> occasionally exhibits his lack of knowledge with (usually) dumb questions.
> 
> But, while I can't say the above any better than you have, I do have one 
> question:
> 
> Why is the FSF and RMS not included in the Cc: line of all messages on this 
> subject, so they can have first hand, the benefit of the remarks this 
> group makes by reading about them from the first person?  You folks are, 
> as a group, the movers and shakers in the advancement of linux, and would 
> continue to do so without the gnu trying to claim they invented linux, 
> which we all know is a prevarication.

Basically because this is a discussion document, not an open letter.

We had some discussion amongst a small group of kernel developers.  Now
we're opening it up to the linux community---which we can't do without
effectively going public as well.

James



From: Gene Heskett [email blocked]
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:30:55 -0400

On Friday 22 September 2006 14:08, James Bottomley wrote:
>On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:59 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> James, I'm most definitely NOT a kernel developer, just a lurker who
>> occasionally exhibits his lack of knowledge with (usually) dumb
>> questions.
>>
>> But, while I can't say the above any better than you have, I do have
>> one question:
>>
>> Why is the FSF and RMS not included in the Cc: line of all messages on
>> this subject, so they can have first hand, the benefit of the remarks
>> this group makes by reading about them from the first person?  You
>> folks are, as a group, the movers and shakers in the advancement of
>> linux, and would continue to do so without the gnu trying to claim they
>> invented linux, which we all know is a prevarication.
>
>Basically because this is a discussion document, not an open letter.
>
>We had some discussion amongst a small group of kernel developers.  Now
>we're opening it up to the linux community---which we can't do without
>effectively going public as well.
>
>James

Well, since this document states the general consensus quite well, and is 
not likely to be edited other than crossing all the t's, I think including 
them (FSF & RMS) would show them just how concerned the major developers 
are with the deviciveness that the proposed V3, as worded say a month ago 
the last time I read it and was appalled, will cause.  You, nor the rest 
of the fans of a great os, will ever be properly served.

You need to remind RMS that he is not a majority when the vote shows 
otherwise by a quite resounding margin, and that he and the FSF may well 
become irrevalent if the V2 is not going to be supported after V3 is 
final.  Let me put it this way, I would be willing to become a paying 
member of a new organization dedicated to preserving the V2 status if the 
due weren't too onnerous.  If V3 becomes the defacto, then my membership 
in the FSF will get dropped like a hot potato.  I'm just one person, but 
how many other paying members will do likewise?  Enough to cause a serious 
hurt to the FSF's finances I'd think.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)



From: Alan Cox [email blocked]
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:05:07 +0100

Ar Gwe, 2006-09-22 am 14:30 -0400, ysgrifennodd Gene Heskett:
> final.  Let me put it this way, I would be willing to become a paying 
> member of a new organization dedicated to preserving the V2 status if the 
> due weren't too onnerous. 

What probably matters more in that situation, and I hope its one that
doesn't arise - v3 is in draft and there is fixing time left for many
issues - is people to maintain the other projects which will get forked
from the FSF if it were to happen: glibc, gcc, etc. My guess is many of
these projects would effectively leave the FSF if this happened.



From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:54:00 -0400

On Friday 22 September 2006 15:05, Alan Cox wrote:
>Ar Gwe, 2006-09-22 am 14:30 -0400, ysgrifennodd Gene Heskett:
>> final.  Let me put it this way, I would be willing to become a paying
>> member of a new organization dedicated to preserving the V2 status if
>> the due weren't too onnerous.
>
>What probably matters more in that situation, and I hope its one that
>doesn't arise - v3 is in draft and there is fixing time left for many
>issues - is people to maintain the other projects which will get forked
>from the FSF if it were to happen: glibc, gcc, etc. My guess is many of
>these projects would effectively leave the FSF if this happened.

I'd almost place bets on that list, Alan.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)


From: Michiel de Boer <x@rebelhomicide.demon.nl>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date:	Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:53:14 +0200

James Bottomley wrote:
> Although this white paper was discussed amongst the full group of kernel
> developers who participated in the informal poll, as you can expect from
> Linux Kernel Developers, there was a wide crossection of opinion.  This
> document is really only for discussion, and represents only the views of
> the people listed as authors (not the full voting pool).
>
> James
>
> ----------
>
> The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3
>
>
> James E.J. Bottomley             Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> Thomas Gleixner            Christoph Hellwig           Dave Jones
> Greg Kroah-Hartman              Tony Luck           Andrew Morton
> Trond Myklebust             David Woodhouse
>
>                                15 September 2006
>                                      Abstract
>
>            This document is a position statement on the GNU General Public
>        License version 3 (in its current Draft 2 form) and its surrounding
>        process issued by some of the Maintainers of the Linux Kernel
>        speaking purely in their role as kernel maintainers. In no regard
>        should any opinion expressed herein be construed to represent the
>        views of any entities employing or being associated with any of the
>        authors.
>
> 1 Linux and GPLv2
>
> Over the past decade, the Linux Operating System has shown itself to be far
> and away the most successful Open Source operating system in history.
> However, it certainly wasn't the first such open source operating system
> and neither is it currently the only such operating system. We believe that
> the pre-eminent success of Linux owes a great part to the dynamism and
> diversity of its community of contributors, and that one of the catalysts
> for creating and maintaining this community is the development contract as
> expressed by GPLv2.
>
> ...<SNIP>....
>
> 6 Conclusions
>
> The three key objections noted in section 5 are individually and
> collectively sufficient reason for us to reject the current licence
> proposal. However, we also note that the current draft with each of the
> unacceptable provisions stripped out completely represents at best marginal
> value over the tested and proven GPLv2. Therefore, as far as we are
> concerned (and insofar as we control subsystems of the kernel) we cannot
> foresee any drafts of GPLv3 coming out of the current drafting process that
> would prove acceptable to us as a licence to move the current Linux Kernel
> to.
>
> Further, since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to
> GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we
> foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open
> Source Universe upon which we rely. This Balkanisation, which will be
> manifested by distributions being forced to fork various packages in order
> to get consistent licences, has the potential to inflict massive collateral
> damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardise the very utility and
> survival of Open Source. Since we can see nothing of sufficient value in
> the current drafts of the GPLv3 to justify this terrible cost, we can only
> assume the FSF is unaware of the current potential for disaster of the
> course on which is has embarked. Therefore, we implore the FSF to
> re-examine the consequences of its actions and to abandon the current GPLv3
>   

For what it's worth, i support RMS and his fight for free software fully.
I support the current draft of the GPL version 3 and am very dissapointed
it will not be adopted as is. IMHO, Linux has the power and influence
to move mountains in the software industry, and shouldn't shy away from
the opportunity to take moral responsibility when it arises.

What is the stance of the developer team / kernel maintainers on DRM,
Trusted Computing and software patents? Does the refusal to adopt GPLv3 as
is mean that these two are more likely to emerge as supported functionality
in the Linux kernel? Are there any moral boundaries Linux kernel developers
will not cross concerning present and new U.S. laws on technology? Are they
willing to put that in writing? Will Linux support HD-DVD and BluRay by
being slightly more tolerant to closed source binary blobs? What about
the already existant problems with the Content Scrambling System for
DVD's?

Finally, i hope that the wishes of the community of people that have only
contributed to the kernel a few times but whose combined work may equal that
of the core developers, are taken into account; as well as the wishes of
the massive amount of users of the Linux kernel.

How about a public poll?

Regards, Michiel de Boer



From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement
Date:	Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:50:20 -0700 (PDT)



On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Michiel de Boer wrote:
> 
> I support the current draft of the GPL version 3 and am very dissapointed
> it will not be adopted as is. IMHO, Linux has the power and influence
> to move mountains in the software industry, and shouldn't shy away from
> the opportunity to take moral responsibility when it arises.

Well, you do have to realize that Linux has never been an FSF project, and 
in fact has never even been a "Free Software" project.

The whole "Open Source" renaming was done largely _exactly_ because people 
wanted to distance themselves from the FSF. The fact that the FSF and it's 
followers refused to accept the name "Open Source", and continued to call 
Linux "Free Software" is not _our_ fault.

Similarly, the fact that rms and the FSF has tried to paint Linux as a GNU 
project (going as far as trying to rename it "GNU/Linux" at every 
opportunity they get) is their confusion, not ours.

I personally have always been very clear about this: Linux is "Open 
Source". It was never a FSF project, and it was always about giving source 
code back and keeping it open, not about anything else. The very first 
license used for the kernel was _not_ the GPL at all, but read the release 
notes for Linux 0.01, and you will see:

		2. Copyrights etc

  This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be
  redistributed provided you do the following:

	- Full source must be available (and free), if not with the
	  distribution then at least on asking for it.

	- Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute
	  only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't
	  (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied
	  without bothering with copyrights.

	- You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling"
	  costs.

notice? Linux from the very beginning was not about the FSF ideals, but 
about "Full source must be available". It also talked about "Free", but 
that very much was "Free as in beer, not as in freedom", and I decided to 
drop that later on.

How much clearer can I be? I've actively tried to promote "Open Source" as 
an alternative to "Free Software", so the FSF only has itself to blame 
over the confusion. 

Thinking that Linux has followed FSF goals is incorrect. IT NEVER DID!

I think the GPLv2 is an absolutely great license. I obviously relicensed 
everything just a few months after releasing the first version of Linux. 
But people who claim that that means that I (or anybody else) should care 
what the FSF thinks on other issues are just being totally silly.

> What is the stance of the developer team / kernel maintainers on DRM,
> Trusted Computing and software patents?

I'm very much on record as not liking them. That changes nothing. I'm also 
very much on record as saying that DRM, TPC etc have nothing at all to do 
with the kernel license.

If you want to fight DRM, do so by joining the Creative Commons movement. 
The problem with Disney is not that they use DRM, it's that they control 
the content in the first place - and they do that because content tends to 
be too monopolized. 

The whole "content" discussion has _nothing_ to do with an operating 
system. Trying to add that tie-in is a bad idea. It tries to link things 
that aren't relevant. 

So go fight the problem at the _source_ of the problem, not in my project 
that has got nothing to do it.

And please, when you join that fight, use your _own_ copyrights. Not 
somebody elses. I absolutely hate how the FSF has tried to use my code as 
a weapon, just because I decided that their license was good.

> How about a public poll?

Here's a poll for you:
 - go write your own kernel
 - poll which one is more popular

It really is that simple. The kernel was released with a few rules. The 
same way you can't just make your own version of it and then not release 
sources, you _also_ cannot just make it GPLv3. 

It's not a democracy. Copyright is a _right_. Authors matter.

			Linus

• Archive of above thread
• KernelTrap interview with Alan Cox